• in

    "Marty" (1955) is the shortest film to win Best Picture at 90 minutes

    "Marty" (1955) is the shortest film to win Best Picture at 90 minutes thumbnail

    At such a short length, the film perfectly captures loneliness and heartache.


    1955 ‧ Drama film/Romance ‧ 1h 34m

    • 7.7/10 IMDb
    • 100% Rotten Tomatoes

    This acclaimed romantic drama follows the life of Marty Piletti (Ernest Borgnine), a stout bachelor butcher who lives with his mother (Esther Minciotti) in the Bronx. Always unlucky in love, Marty reluctantly goes out to a ballroom one night and meets a nice teacher named Clara (Betsy Blair). Though Marty and Clara hit it off, his relatives discourage him from pursuing the relationship, and he must decide between his family’s approval or a shot at finding romance.
    Initial release: April 11, 1955 (New York City)
    Director: Delbert Mann
    Screenplay: Paddy Chayefsky
    Story by: Paddy Chayefsky
    Awards: Academy Award for Best Picture

    “Marty” has been fashioned into a sock picture. It’s a warm, human, sometimes sentimental and an enjoyable experience. Full review

    Ronald Holloway
    Enormously influential, it spawned Hollywood’s interest in smaller scale, prosaic dramas, few of which failed to match its resonance. Full review

    William Thomas

    Continue reading

  • in

    Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Anyone?

    Is Guardians 2 anyone else’s favourite Marvel movie so far?

    Finished my 4th watch-through, and my overall consensus is that it was a huge improvement over the first one, considering that movie was still great/fantastic in my eyes.

    Though theres much more comedy here than before, they still managed to bring in excellent dialogue, amazing acting (especially Pratt, and in that scene at the end…), probably the most diverse colour palette i’ve seen in a movie in a while, fantastic cgi etc.

    They took everything that made the first movie great, expanded it, and added elements from the other movies that have a more serious tone, making it feel like a product that doesn’t feel like just one genre. It takes several, blends them together, and provides something so fantastic. I love this movie so much, and i didn’t want to share any thoughts until i’d had decent amounts of watch throughs.

    Anyone else feel the same? Or anyone who thinks differently? I’d love to hear

    Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
    2017 ‧ Fantasy/Science fiction film ‧ 2h 18m

    Peter Quill and his fellow Guardians are hired by a powerful alien race, the Sovereign, to protect their precious batteries from invaders. When it is discovered that Rocket has stolen the items they were sent to guard, the Sovereign dispatch their armada to search for vengeance. As the Guardians try to escape, the mystery of Peter’s parentage is revealed.
    Initial release: April 19, 2017 (Hollywood)
    Director: James Gunn
    Box office: 862.9 million USD
    Budget: 200 million USD
    Music composed by: Tyler Bates
    Critic reviews
    Marvel’s favorite motley crew of reformed outlaws is back for another space adventure full of classic tunes, epic battles, and charming comedy.Full review

    Sandie Angulo Chen
    Common Sense Media
    It doesn’t so much deepen the first “Guardians” as offer a more strenuous dose of fun to achieve a lesser high. Full review

    Owen Gleiberman
    Whether you saw or avoided the original Guardians, that choice will likely inform what you do with Vol. 2, because this sequel flies in the same content universe. Full review
    Paul Asay
    Plugged In
    Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 doubles-down on everything that audiences loved about its predecessor, to still-entertaining but diminished returns. Full review
    Sandy Schaefer
    Screen Rant

    Continue reading

  • in

    ‘Sunshine’ is the bleakest and most beautiful sci-fi movies ever made

    ‘Sunshine’ is the bleakest and most beautiful sci-fi movies ever made thumbnail

    Ten years later, ‘Sunshine’ remains one of the bleakest and most beautiful sci-fi movies ever made

    The first time I saw Sunshine, it was in a movie theater packed with awkward men (in my memory, the audience was at least 90 percent male). When the movie ended, my friend and I spent an extra 10 minutes on the floor, trying to find his misplaced glasses.

    Despite the sub-optimal viewing conditions, I remember feeling genuinely thrilled by what I’d seen. Sunshine, it seemed to me, was pointing to a promising new direction for science fiction film.

    It was the second collaboration between director Danny Boyle, screenwriter Alex Garland and star Cillian Murphy. Their first, 28 Days Later, had been a surprising success. In addition to reinventing and revitalizing the zombie movie, it showed how low-budget, handheld filmmaking could be used to blend science fiction and horror in a way that was both emotionally compelling and scary as hell.

    And although it was more science fictional than 28 Days Later, with a larger budget, Sunshine still seemed very much like a spiritual successor, bringing the same indie approach to outer space.

    Sadly, any hopes about the film’s broader impact quickly faded. After its release in the summer of 2007, Sunshine underperformed globally, making only $32 million (compared to the $85 million earned by 28 Days Later), with a paltry $3.6 million in the U.S. One of the actors, future Captain America Chris Evans, started bringing it up in interviews as an example of how no one had seen his “good” movies. And while Boyle, Garland and Murphy have each had their subsequent successes, they haven’t made another film together.

    Still, Sunshine may be the movie I’ve rewatched most in the decade since then. Usually, when I mention it in conversation, people just stare at me blankly, but once in a while, someone’s eyes will light up and they’ll say, “Oh my God, I love that movie!” (One of the greatest moments of my life was briefly geeking out about it with Oscar Isaac, who auditioned for a role in Sunshine and was subsequently cast in Garland’s Ex Machina.)

    The movie seems to be remembered fondly outside my social circle, too — it was included in a recent “10 years later” screening series at my neighborhood movie theater, and it just appeared on Rolling Stone’s list of the best sci-fi movies of the 21st century (at least 30 spots too low, but still)….Source


    Continue reading

  • in

    Matt Schrader: Film Music Documentary

    Matt Schrader: Film Music Documentary thumbnail

    I’m Matt Schrader (director) and I spent the last three years interviewing 60+ Hollywood film composers for SCORE: A FILM MUSIC DOCUMENTARY out today!


    🎹🎸🎷 TRAILER (2:20): youtube.com/watch?v=9K6RwDM8VFE

    🎼🎻🎺 WHERE TO WATCH: score-movie.com

    SCORE: A FILM MUSIC DOCUMENTARY explores where composers get their inspiration and music’s power to give goosebumps.

    Featuring Hans Zimmer, John Williams, Danny Elfman, James Cameron, Quincy Jones, Trent Reznor, Randy Newman and more than 60 Hollywood composers and filmmakers shot over the last three years.

    Our SCORE team is here with me to answer your questions about film music’s modern renaissance! From the surging popularity of film composer to the explosion in live-to-picture film concerts and Hans Zimmer’s international tour!


    Matt Schrader is a three-time Emmy Award-winning news producer and filmmaker and a graduate of the University of Southern California’s School of Cinematic Arts. In 2014, he left his career in television journalism to pursue SCORE: A FILM MUSIC DOCUMENTARY, his first feature-length film.

    Continue reading

  • in

    The Matrix – When Trinity falls in love with Neo

    The Oracle told Neo that he was not The One, but that he had potential.

    Trinity says after Neo dies that the Oracle said that the man she loved would be The One. She then says Neo can’t be dead because she loves him implying he is The One.

    My question is, was he The One before that moment? Or did Trinity have a larger part in this process than I previously thought before. Does this mean that she ultimately decided his fate as The One because she loved him, or did she love him because he was The One?

    It’s like the chicken and the egg and I find it symbolic of love itself and how many times it takes someone seeing the potential within you and through that recognition they inspire your personal growth even further, and I found it sweet. But also somewhat unsettling as this also implies Trinity was one of the most powerful influences in the trilogy, and it makes me wonder if she had the power to fall in love with someone else, would that person be the One instead of Keanu ?

    Anyways…great movie

    The Matrix
    1999 ‧ Fantasy/Science fiction film ‧ 2h 30m

    Neo (Keanu Reeves) believes that Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), an elusive figure considered to be the most dangerous man alive, can answer his question — What is the Matrix? Neo is contacted by Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss), a beautiful stranger who leads him into an underworld where he meets Morpheus. They fight a brutal battle for their lives against a cadre of viciously intelligent secret agents. It is a truth that could cost Neo something more precious than his life.
    Initial release: March 31, 1999 (USA)
    Directors: Lana Wachowski, Lilly Wachowski
    Featured song: Main Title / Trinity Infinity
    Producer: Joel Silver
    Screenplay: Lana Wachowski, Lilly Wachowski
    Critic reviews
    This film is heavy on special effects and brooding paranoia, light on plot, dialogue, character, and even coherence. Full review

    The deliciously inventive Wachowskis have delivered the syntax for a new kind of movie: technically mind-blowing, style merged perfectly with content and just so damn cool. Full review

    Ian Nathan
    If fashion dictates choosing sides, it’s a lock for the kinky rebels who wear black leather and cool shades. Full review

    Peter Travers
    Rolling Stone
    Late in the 21st century, man develops artificial intelligence (referred to simply as the Machines). The Machines take control of Earth. Man fights back. Full review
    Steven Isaac
    Plugged In

    Continue reading

  • in

    Appreciating the subtleties of 'The Godfather'

    So, everyone knows about The Godfather. It’s widely regarded as the greatest gangster film ever made & one of the best of all time, in any category. Here, I’ll attempt to shine some light on the subtle details that are used throughout the film which I’ve never seen pointed out.

    Now, everyone knows about the famous scenes & dialogues; ‘Offer he can’t refuse’, ‘The horse head’, ‘Leave the gun, take the canoli’, ‘Sleeping with the fishes’ etc. What everyone seems to miss (or atleast never seem to mention), are the little clues that are placed through-out the film, that predict of things to come. Without further ado:-

    The Wedding Scene

    Nothing wrong in this scene; seems like a perfectly good gangster wedding, where everyone’s drinking, dancing & enjoying themselves, but look closely.

    1. The kid who drools over the amount of cash being given out (“all cash, small bills, in that little silk purse, if only this was someone else wedding”) is the same guy that betrayed the Corleone family for the first hit on the Don. This small scene, masquerading as a comedic effect, shows this kid as being open to bribery.
    2. A photographer takes a picture of Don Barzini, only to get roughed by one of his goons. They then hands him the negative from the camera, which is promptly destroyed. Seems like a perfectly normal thing gangsters might do. Only, it also shows how Don Barzini wanted to stay in the shadows, which is important for the plot later on.

    Clemenza & Tessio

    Clemenza is shown dancing & enjoying himself at the wedding, like if it was his own daughters wedding. Tessio, on the other hand, is only sitting around, or shown dancing with a little girl. This, to me, shows that Clemenza is fully loyal, committed, while Tessio is holding back. Also, Clemenza congratulates Michael on the Don’s survival when he arrives at home. He jokes about Michale’s relationship with Kay, offers cooking tips & teaching him how to shoot. Tessio’s never shown doing any such thing, like he’s holding back on the ‘personal relationship’ part.

    The use of alcohol through-out critical scenes

    The number of times Coppolla has used alcohol in critical scenes is striking. I can’t say for certain if it means anything, but here’s a break-down of when it’s used.

    1. Don Corleone refills Sollazzo’s glass with wine when he first comes to discuss going into business together.
    2. Sollazzo offers it to Hagen when discussing terms of a deal, after the hit on the Godfather.
    3. Santino suggests it to the kid that betrayed the Don for his attempted assatination.
    4. Hagen takes a shot himself, before breaking the news of Santino’s death to the Don.
    5. Michael offers Carlo a drink when confirming that it was him that got Santino killed.

    I also find it intriguing that Michael lets it be known publicly, during a meeting with Clemenza, & Tessio, that Hagen is out as consiglieri, & he’ll be moving forward with Carlo, but when confronting him after the baptism, he indicates that he’s always been on to him.

    The Godfather
    1972 ‧ Drama film/Drama ‧ 2h 58m

    Widely regarded as one of the greatest films of all time, this mob drama, based on Mario Puzo’s novel of the same name, focuses on the powerful Italian-American crime family of Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando). When the don’s youngest son, Michael (Al Pacino), reluctantly joins the Mafia, he becomes involved in the inevitable cycle of violence and betrayal. Although Michael tries to maintain a normal relationship with his wife, Kay (Diane Keaton), he is drawn deeper into the family business.
    Release dateMarch 24, 1972 (Canada)
    Critic reviews
    So, at the bottom line, the film has a lot of terrific mood, one great performance by Pacino, an excellent character segue by Brando, and a strong supporting cast. Full review

    A.D. Murphy
    Epic in scope while maintaining a patience and intimacy characteristic of European art cinema, “The Godfather” is rightly considered one of the greatest films ever made. Full review

    Elliot Panek
    Common Sense Media
    With performances, style and substance to savour, this shows how it is possible to smash box office records without being mindless. Full review

    Kim Newman

    Continue reading

  • in

    Carey Mulligan Confesses She Didn’t Love Her Work in ‘The Great Gatsby’

    Carey Mulligan Confesses She Didn’t Love Her Work in ‘The Great Gatsby’ thumbnail

    Carey Mulligan Confesses She Wasn’t Thrilled With Her Work in ‘The Great Gatsby’


    Carey Mulligan confesses that she has doubts about her 2013 performance as Daisy Buchanan in the tentpole “The Great Gatsby.”

    “I didn’t love my work in ‘Gatsby,’” Mulligan says about the Baz Luhrmann spectacle that grossed $351 million worldwide. “I’m not sure if I slight kind of lost my way because I was intimidated by the scale of it. I think I might have been overawed by my experience and intimidated by the level of performances around me.”

    She continued, “It was how big it was and how visual it was. I definitely felt there were fleeting moments where I really found the character and then I felt like I lost her a little bit. I’ve never been wholly thrilled about my work in it.”

    Mulligan beat out every actress in Hollywood when she nailed an audition with Leonardo DiCaprio to play Daisy. “It was almost like this ‘America’s Got Talent’ casting thing around the role,” she says. “And then it was the expectation of playing the part.”

    She crammed non-stop about the 1920s and author F. Scott Fitzgerald. “I love the character so much and I spent so much time preparing,” she says. “It might not have translated onto the screen. I think I let my own security get in my own way. In that respect, I wish I could do it again.”

    On the other hand, it’s notoriously hard translating a Fitzgerald character into film. “It was just a tricky one,” Mulligan says. “Maybe I tried to put too many things in and they ended up blurring. And maybe I could have been more specific. I found the world so fascinating in Zelda and Ginevra King” — the socialite who is believed to be Fitzgerald’s muse — “and everything around F.Scott Fitzgerald and their relationship.”…Source

    The Great Gatsby
    2013 ‧ Drama film/Romance ‧ 2h 23m
    Midwest native Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) arrives in 1922 New York in search of the American dream. Nick, a would-be writer, moves in next-door to millionaire Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) and across the bay from his cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan) and her philandering husband, Tom (Joel Edgerton). Thus, Nick becomes drawn into the captivating world of the wealthy and — as he bears witness to their illusions and deceits — pens a tale of impossible love, dreams, and tragedy.
    Release date: May 10, 2013 (Canada)
    Director: Baz Luhrmann
    Box office: 351 million USD
    Budget: 105 million USD
    Awards: Academy Award for Best Costume Design
    Critic reviews
    Baz Luhrmann is a polarizing director. Full review

    S. Jhoanna Robledo
    Common Sense Media
    Those looking for something more sophisticated (but no less visually entertaining ) than the average summer blockbuster, Great Gatsby 3D offers a mix of old Hollywood grandeur and new Hollywood edge.Full review
    Kofi Outlaw
    Screen Rant
    Despite DiCaprio’s prize performance, purists will fume, but even as lit-crashing razzle-dazzle entertainment Luhrmann’s adaptation is a candelabrum too far. Full review

    Ian Nathan
    Some will find that this fresh-faced Baz Luhrmann/Leonardo DiCaprio movie infuses the classic book with new life. That may be good. But is it a great Gatsby? Full review
    Paul Asay
    Plugged In

    CatheterC0wb0y: I don’t really blame Carey on this. If you watched the trailers you could tell this director was gonna throw most substance with this film out the window in favor of some very weird “1920s in the 2010s” style. While the movie isn’t flat out horrible, it is incredibly convoluted to the point that it doesn’t really know if it wants to take itself 100% seriously.

    HenroTee: I didn’t love the film, but I don’t remember anything negative about her performance. I guess you are your own worst critic. Though I do wish she did more bigger and out there films and it’s a shame Gatsby turned her off from doing them. She is a phenomenal actress and she was kinda the “it” girl around 2011-2013.

    BottledTales: Hm, that’s interesting. I personally really loved her in The Great Gatsby. I got the similar feel about her as I did about Daisy while reading the book, so no complaints from me.

    Boxxcars: I thought she was a great Daisy. She deserved a better adaptation.

    Delta_Assault: I confess I’d have to agree.

    Daisy needs a sort of entrancing quality that makes you want to be with her, even though she’s ultimately a shallow rich girl who doesn’t have much in the way of thoughtful ideas. That magnetism that makes you see what Gatsby sees in her. Obviously, she’s symbolic of wealth and money, that’s what any literary analysis tells you about the book. But her in person also needs that kind of entrancing glamor and beauty and spirit that can connect to an audience, in place of just this idea of money. That takes a special kind of quality.

    _DiscoNinja_: Actors should follow Bob Hoskins example. He waited over 20 years to shit on Super Mario Bros.

    NYPD-BLUE: I loved this movie and believe Mulligan and DiCaprio were amazing together.

    MBAMBA0: She was badly miscast.

    Daisy should be around Gatsby’s age and more of a glamorous beauty – while very pretty, Mulligan was too young and girlish.

    It may be a cliche to cast Kate Winslett with Dicaprio, but she would have been good, or Angelina Jolie.

    pooroldben: I actually think Leo wasn’t great in this either, and I’ve never really been a fan of Toby Maguire. But concede I think the overall fault is with the director. I wish he could have put some of the magic of strictly ballroom into it.

    AndalusianGod: For me, the only glaring fault of The Great Gatsby movie was the awful soundtrack produced by Jay-Z.

    golbezexdeath: Neither were we.

    MikeArrow: She was miscast to begin with. Seeing her underneath Gatsby’s narration really highlighted how she doesn’t fit the description of the character at all.

    Sgt_Funky: i hate when actors do this, i prefer when they stand by their work

    rupertdyland: All she can play is posh english people. Like most private school actors and actresses. Anything out of their comfort sound they melt.

  • in

    Jackie Chan's "Around the World in 80 Days" widely-panned. Your reaction?

    Do you ever find out movies you’ve loved all these years were widely-panned? How’s your reaction?

    I have two in mind for me.

    Jackie Chan’s “Around the World in 80 Days” was immensely enjoyable for me. I was stuck in an airplane as a kid once and I would have died of impatience and boredom had it not been for Jackie Chan. It was funny enough to make me laugh. It had recognizable stars I liked. I liked everything about Jackie Chan’s bad english. His kung-fu. I liked the hot blonde chick with the cute accent. And I just liked the wacky steam-punk-y old-timey vibe.

    Anyways I recently decided to wiki the film, and turns out…it was blasted by critics and viewers, it almost feels like I’m the only one in the world who enjoyed it. Admittedly I saw it when I was relatively young, and in an airplane. Still. Jackie Chan! In a rather creative setting! Comedy! Old-timey setting! Schwarzeneggar’s last film before ascending to the position of Governor! NO CHRIS TUCKER!!!! What’s not to love? No Chris Tucker!

    Other than that, there’s also the western Godzilla. Why? Because I was a kid, and it had a really big dinosaur.

    Around the World in 80 Days
    2004 ‧ Action/Romance ‧ 2 hours
    Phileas Fogg (Steve Coogan) is an inventor living in Victorian England. He believes he can travel around the world in 80 days. Another inventor (Jim Broadbent) challenges him to make the trip, and Phileas agrees. Accompanying Phileas on his journey are his loyal manservant, Passepartout (Jackie Chan), and Monique (Cécile de France), a beautiful navigator. Utilizing a variety of transportation means and Passepartout’s martial arts skills, the trio embarks on a globe-spanning adventure.

    Initial release: June 13, 2004 (Los Angeles)
    Director: Frank Coraci
    Box office: 75 million USD
    Budget: 110 million USD
    Story by: Jules Verne

    Continue reading

  • in

    Why does "Twin Peaks" get a pass but "Lost" does not?

    Let me just preface by saying that despite my frustration with all the unanswered questions I did enjoy watching Twin Peaks: The Return.

    Why does “Twin Peaks” get a pass when it comes to loose threads but “Lost” does not?

    So, my question today isn’t intended to shit on TP. I’m posing this question as a fan.

    As I was ruminating on the finale I realized that I was feeling a very similar emotion to how I felt following the finale of Lost. Both shows highly intrigued me with their enigmatic characters, mysterious forces, and deep lore. Both shows were shows I watched religiously and endlessly speculated about. Yet, I seem to recall there being great angst and criticism towards the writers of Lost following the finale for introducing so many mysteries that didn’t even come close to being answered and plot threads that dropped off and went absolutely nowhere. It was considered at the time to be sloppy writing and a half-assed attempt to retcon previous inconsistencies.

    So, that leads me to my question. Why does Twin Peaks get a pass for arguably doing the same thing? If this is supposedly the finale of the series (no confirmation yet on a S4), why does Lynch get off the hook for introducing so many characters, scenes, and questions which go almost totally unanswered? Examples would be the “119” drug addict, the weird black box, “the cow jumped over the moon” message during the prison riot, Jerry Horne’s freakouts, the introduction of Beverly Paige’s sick husband, Audrey’s entire plotline, and the Sarah Palmer/Judy connection. The general consensus I get from people is either “what did you expect from David Lynch?” or “he left it up to us to interpret.” Regarding the former, I guess I expect some sort of coherent storytelling and a reliable narrator so the audience can follow the plot, even if it is very unorthodox. Regarding the latter, I too like it when some things are left up to us to imagine, explore, and play with as a community. However, there are so many unanswered and unexplored things which are only briefly introduced that we are left to exegete and interpret almost every scene with wild speculation. I feel like a PhD in Lynchian studies is required to even begin to crack this.

    Overall, while I must admit there was some brilliant television in this season (ep. 8 in particular), I feel the unanswered questions go beyond mystery and intrigue and end up being downright frustrating and/or disappointing for the audience. I can’t help but feel Twin Peaks gets a pass when Lost didn’t because of the pedigree of David Lynch, not because there is some key to unlocking the mystery buried deep in the lore.

    What are your thoughts?

    Twin Peaks
    American drama series
    A crime drama mixed with healthy doses of the surreal, this series is about FBI Agent Dale Cooper, who travels to the small logging town of Twin Peaks to solve the murder of seemingly innocent high schooler Laura Palmer. Almost nothing is as it seems, however, and the show’s sometimes eerie visuals, oddball characters and wild dream sequences drive the point home.
    First episode date: April 8, 1990
    Theme song: Falling
    Director: David Lynch

    chadqnormie: First and foremost thing here is Twin Peaks probably has a 1/10th of the viewers LOST had.

    Mainstream audiences will rarely appreciate a non cut and dry ending. However with LOST it was a little different. It wasn’t like the Sopranos with a non cut-dry ending because you realized you had been X-files’d where the writers were just throwing things against the wall and seeing what stuck, where as Twin Peaks is much more someone’s vision, a vision that just happens to be mysterious and have no intention of answering questions in a satisfying manner.

    I just feels disappointing when you realize they were just writing mysterious things to be mysterious (and has honestly tainted the legacy of the show a bit)

    Honestly I’m not sure why you would even begin to compare these two shows especially if you’re a fan of TP this ending shouldn’t really be that big a surprise.

    Maninhartsford: Basically, the creators of LOST assured everyone for years that everything would come together at the end, and that was a lie. Lynch, on the other hand, is notorious for hating closure — remember, with twin peaks alone he (a. didn’t end season 1 with the end of the “season-long” mystery. (b. ended season 2 on a cliffhanger even though they were, at that point, airing on Saturdays and almost assuredly cancelled. And (c. was given the chance to make a followup movie to wrap up the cliffhanger and made not only a prequel, but a prequel that reminds you of the cliffhanger every 20 minutes.

    I guess what it comes down to is with Peaks it’s hardly a surprise.

    MC_Carty: Lynch and Frost are a totally different beast. Also, the show ain’t done yet and Lynch isn’t the type to give you answers for everything. He tells the story the way he sees fit and the rest is on the viewer.

    And, personally, I really like thinking for myself and taking something away from it that maybe someone else doesn’t see. I also never had a real problem with Lost until they hamfisted explanations in that just seemed like it was to appease people too dumb to think of something themselves.

    I’d love answers, of course, but I’m okay having to think a bit and connecting things that aren’t stated as fact. And TP is so damn trippy that giving a straight answer seems almost impossible. It’s definitely not a show for everyone. I only know a few people personally that love it and the rest seem to hesitate when I say that it’s difficult to explain and make any sense of it if they aren’t keen on having to sit and think.

    RadBadTad: Lost was a puzzle, and the entire premise of the show was solving it.

    Twin Peaks is a weird experience, where the focus is on the experience, rather than on solving all the weirdness.

    icount2tenanddrinkt: i started watching twin peaks last night, wanted to wait until series had finished, as i knew if i watched it week by week i would have forgotten what had happened.
    So did first 2 last night, didnt know first 2 were 2 hours, anyway less than 45 min in to it. I dont know whats going on, cant remember the original series and im confused.
    But its just so watchable, havent a clue whats going on, and i dont mind, its entertaining me, and im enjoying it. Now having read a couple of reviews about it today, and they seem to say what i was thinking ….. what the fuck is this all about…. But im happy with that, sometimes its nice just to watch something that has been put together with such beauty and feeling.

    Im hoping the rest of the season keeps me interested even if i dont understand it, heck there are lots of things i dont understand that i like, my cats, how the internet actually works, the rules of spelling, the list goes on. And includes what Lost was all about.

    Plan on watching 3 episodes tonight.

    OccupyGravelpit: Lynch is going for a tone and a feeling where reality unravels, whereas Lost set us up to expect an Agatha Christie style mystery explanation (whether it be sci fi, religion, all a dream, etc.) that ultimately clarifies what came before.

    So it’s just a question of expectations. Certainly there were people in the 80s who watched Twin Peaks and were disappointed that there was a mystery that ultimately wasn’t solved. But anyone who is watching the new series in 2017 already knows not to expect closure.

    olddicklemon72: Such things have come to be expected from Lynch. Season 2 got no such pass, but now it’s just not that surprising that it’s more about the “art” of the project than the narrative.

    When Lost concluded, the creators had no such reputation to temper expectations. In turn though, Lindelof got much more leeway with the ending of the Leftovers in part because of Lost we knew not to expect something entirely tidy.

    RahulBhatia10: With Twin Peaks, the unpredictability of all its events is probably what keeps is so fulfilling although we dont receive clear cut answers. And its style is very different from Lost, where they almost had to appease to the cravings of fans and technically change some of their original plans.
    However, with Twin Peaks, Lynch was fulfilling his show to the max. Everything is realized in the way he wanted, Showtime let him do what he wants too.
    You have to consider the difference in viewership between both shows as well, and what audiences they are striving to serve. So, the reaction to plot threads and cliffhangers also differs between the different fan communities.
    Two wholly separate beasts.

    DaveSW777: Lost pretended it was a smart show that would answer all these question. Twin Peaks isn’t about answering questions, it’s about making you guess.

    sample_size_of_on1: Feel free to downvote this and make it disapear. I didn’t watch Lost, but I think Twin Peaks the Return is the best thing to happen to TV in years.

    My understanding of the criticism of Lost is that people felt that the writers were winging it and had maybe gotten in over there head.

    I don’t feel that way about Twin Peaks at all. I feel like David Lynch was firmly in control the entire way and it ended exactly how he wanted it to end.

    To me Twin Peaks is an example of a master at the top of his craft being allowed to do what he does best.

    rooney815: Personally I’m a huge fan of lost and loved the ending. It’s still some of the most moving scenes I’ve ever seen on television. That being said it appears it was the promise of questions being answered that split people. Especially considering on Lindelof’s next show, The Leftovers, they promised nothing would be answered and that series finale is pretty much universally praised as one of the best series endings in recent television (even though it had many similar elements to Lost’s finale).

    I think there is a lot of “questions” that have been answered that people don’t realize (polar bear) or that can be figured out with clues and hints (smoke monster mom). I’m okay with the latter since I am really into open ended and up to your interpretation non-answers because they’re almost always more satisfying and thrilling in your mind before you get an answer (the whispers).

    There’s also the unfair advantage of airing your limited series show in shorter seasons on a cable network compared to not knowing when you’re going to end on a broadcast network but that’s another story.

    TheEvenDarkerKnight: Expectations

    Wowbagger1: >Twin Peaks gets a pass when Lost didn’t because of the pedigree of David Lynch

    Lost had a ton of viewers on ABC back in the day. I’m betting that show is the most popular drama to air on the three letter networks in the last 15 years. They had multiple 20 season episodes and promised the viewers a satisfying conclusion.

    This season of TP was on Showtime and didn’t do well with viewers. The critics have been outspoken but the show didn’t really hit mainstream like the first two seasons did.

    MaoTseTrump: The Audrey thing is perfect Lynch. He left her where she always played best; In our imaginations of her. As for the loose ends. I want to take note for everyone here to watch at different times when Gordon Cole speaks, it is actually David Lynch talking to the audience. “Albert, I couldn’t do it..” Albert responds, “you’ve gone soft in your old age”
    Then Cole says, “not where it counts”
    We all probably want to think about Cole’s boner, right? Like the boner is just a memory now. Go ahead to that boring cul-de-sac. Lynch is actually saying he will not give the audience everything, and it is said from a position of strength, not a lack of ability to deliver such a package.
    Also, in the original series when he made out with Madchen Amick. That was him telling the audience to fuck off about putting love scenes in the show. “Get a good look buddy, it’s going to happen again!” Not to mention every line that Cole speaks is YELLED AT US.

    SonicWeaponFence: I strongly disagree with anyone who uses the fact that much of LOST was written as they went along as a criticism. So was most of Breaking Bad. So is almost every show. It’s not a novel that you can go back and polish. It’s a group effort with plenty of limitations.

    Lynch with Twin Peaks has a very clear vision. The reason people cut him more slack here is that we knew he was going to do this. LOST’s narrative was way more traditional despite it’s weirdness. The main plot turns on an ancient Roman who plotted escape from imprisonment using a shell game that involved prescience and time travel, but there was a beginning, middle, and end. And plenty of people did not like and in many cases did not understand the ending.

    It recalls very strongly people’s reactions to the end of The Stand, which makes sense because The Stand was HUGELY influential on LOST (as was Twin Peaks).

    Furshake: Lynch did everything on purpose. Lost creators stumbled their way through the show, unsure of what they were doing from the start.

    MareliMovieGal: It really comes down to… Lynch is Lynch. He’s a well known figure in the film community and ever since he started he’s been known for loose ends, and more questions than answers. We can’t begin to expect it from him, so I think everyone has accepted that fact when they watch new “Twin Peaks”.

    Another, simpler answer might be network vs. Showtime. On ABC (if I remember right), “Lost” could only get away with so much before executives would step in and be like, “Yeah, please answer this”. On Showtime, however, Lynch is given free reign with his vision.

    mickeyflinn: Twin Peaks doesn’t get a pass from me on any level. It has its apologist but I find it to be a mess.

    > I can’t help but feel Twin Peaks gets a pass when Lost didn’t because of the pedigree of David Lynch, not because there is some key to unlocking the mystery buried deep in the lore.

    Yep. The only defense you ever hear of the show is how the master, mastered. Twin Peaks is a mess. It was a mess 27 years ago it is a mess now.

    sweetpeapickle: There are plenty of shows that don’t tie up loose ends. The “larger than life” shows just seem to get talked about more. When you watched either of these shows, were you watching because you liked them, or just to see the ending? Most people watch shows episode by episode. If there’s a great mystery to go with it…well that makes it even better. As the series or seasons go on, viewers will drop off. Those remaining, for the most part, are still watching because they like the show. Those who are only watching for the ending are few, no matter how much one might disagree. Doesn’t mean viewers liked the ending. But out of all the series that have been on tv, it’s rare for everyone to like the finales.

    dollwithdrawl: What are the loose threads in LOST, out of curiosity?

    dissident87: It’s all about expectations. LOST was a fairly coherent mainstream show on network television produced by JJ Abrams. There was an expectation that it was all going somewhere worthwhile and the wait would be worth it.

    Nobody is expecting coherence from anything David lynch does. That’s not why people tune in to his things

    sb1729: In case you weren’t aware, Fire Walk With Me was absolutely demolished by the critics. Everyone hated it (ironically for the same reasons people didn’t like this finale) but the tide eventually turned. He is “getting a pass” now because now people pretty much know what to expect from Lynch, so I guess they weren’t as surprised by the apparent lack of closure. That and the fact that Lost had a far greater viewership and thus a far greater amount of casual watchers. The majority of the people who watched this season of TP to the end were huge Lynch fans who, I assume, loved the finale. I know I did.

    Hillary1947-2017: Because Abrams and Damon Lin are not Lynch.

    beebop222222: not everything in twin peaks is a mystery to be solved, or a problem that requires an explanation. Lots of things you talk about fall under this category (such as the drug addict and jerry). That being said, it is disapointing we didnt get closure with audrey or sarah palmer.

    EdKord: 1) You’re not even sure that it truly is over. A 4th season is not impossible.

    2) Even if there’s nothing more in TV, there’s a book coming next year that will reveal more.

    3) Only Audrey’s story wasn’t finished. Cooper and Laura’s story might be interpreted as finished. It wasn’t an happy ending, but it might have been an ending.

    4) At no point you see Lynch backed into a corner. Everything seemed to be coming to a conclusion and to have an answer. At this point, it simply seems he decided not to answer everything. Do I like it? No. But he didn’t do it for lack of talent or capacity, it was a choice. I mean, Cooper’s story could perfectly well be wrapped up with a few hugs after the fight with Bob and Audrey could’ve been shown to be in a coma. That would answer everything. Lynch decided not to take the easy root in the very last episode. Most of the questions that came up during the show were answered, he simply added new ones in the end and left them unanswered.

    staymad101: Bandwagoning.

    captaindunbar: because Lost blows

    tenillusions: I think it was the constant “it’s not purgatory” and “everything happens for a reason” from the Lost writers.

    Burningheart1978: Who says TP gets a pass? It fucked up for me exactly the same as LOST did; the creators disappeared up their own asses.

    They bought in to the mystique that surrounded their shows. For LOST, it meant seeing through the silly “flash-sideways” and realising the creators were saying “Ha! Aren’t we clever, we fooled you LOLZ” (the public whining saying “Go watch NCIS” didn’t help). For Twin Peaks, it meant an overindulged, dreary ego trip for Lynch which was more “About the mystique of an old hit” than the *actual Twin Peaks show*.

    TV_PartyTonight: Because Peaks is done by David Fucking Lynch, one of the greatest artists of our time. Anything he didn’t answer, is because that was his vision.

    Lost was made by fucking hacks, that were just making shit up as they went along.

    MarsShadow: If you went into Twin Peaks (by David Lynch) expecting everything to be handed to you on a silver platter then you’re beyond saving.

    MaoTseTrump: Because Lynch could film Catsup dripping from a bottle and it would cause you to discover the meaning of your soul. That’s why.

    oharabk: I was wondering the same thing. it’s frustrating to be honest. I’ll defend Lost till the day I die, and I’ll also be shitting on Lynch for the immense waste of time that is Twin Peaks.

    dbroberts2008: “Shit on TP” hahaha…

    I’ll leave now.

    lvl99weedle: The Twin Peaks finale felt like watching the whole show was a waste of time for me. Sucks that it will most likely not get a 4th season to tie things up.

    withcomment: Lost tied up loose ends like a champ compared to Twin Peaks. I guess Lynch has more “Secret” books and networks to scam out of money to “finish” the story.

    Jaywearspants: Twin Peaks has a cult following and many fewer fans. Personally I think lost is infinitely better of a tv show.

    Kyle MacLachlan says you shouldn’t hold your breath for more Twin Peaks

    Reddit Image

    The Twin Peaks revival turned out to be so much more than fans of the original could have hoped for—it was as strange and wild a ride 27 years later, one that star Kyle MacLachlan was happy to take again. But if the finale or the simple fact that it was happening again made you think David Lynch’s return to Twin Peaks would be an extended stay, Agent Dale Cooper has some bad news for you. In an interview with Deadline, MacLachlan says “there are no discussions for more Twin Peaks. That’s where that is.”

    Despite the new and renewed interest, no one involved is thinking about making more episodes just yet. The actor’s still absorbing the last few episodes, including one moment from the finale that he calls “traumatic.” “How to interpret that is open to so many possibilities, I feel. I’m not even sure where I am on that,” MachLachlan tells Deadline about the ending. “We filmed it very early and coming back to it now, it’s incredibly powerful—particularly with Sheryl Lee and that fantastic blood-curdling scream in the middle of the night in a small neighborhood in Seattle.” At least we’ll always have Dougie (and, to a lesser extent, Wally)…Source

Load More
Congratulations. You've reached the end of the internet.